Why do you assume that the only place we get our news is from Large Corporate news organizations?
Some of us read as many stories from as many different organizations as we can. I don't watch much TV so all of my news comes from the local paper and mostly Internet News Sources. There are a large number of sources out there and we are capable of determining for the priority that we place. I do not understand why there are people who first assume that we take everything that is given to us from CNN as the Gospel. I know it owned by Ted Turner and he wants ratings and is going to do what gets ratings. But for the most part the people who are doing to writing and the reporting still want to report the truth. You ask how can you generalize a population based on a small clip. I don't think we are. We are generalizing a population based on repeated actions and comments made over the past 10 years. I don't think it is generalizing I think it is making a conclusion. If you want to talk about generalization of a population look at how the rest of the world views America. You seem to think we take all we hear and read from the news as the truth. You also seem to think that every news outlet here is only feeding us information because it is in-line with their corporate strategy. To me a manufactured story is something you read in the Weekly World News or the Onion. These are for entertainment and we know that. Women were(are) beaten in the streets in Afghanistan because of laws put in place by the Taliban. Maybe there were only a few video clips, but I do trust that what the people I have talked to personally and the people who are being interviewed are telling at least some truth. They maybe exaggerating the facts, but that is human nature. Where do you get your news. You seem to think that everything we read is manufactured. Well what do you read? At 01:07 PM 12/5/2001 +1100, you wrote: >Why do you insist on basing your discussions of the world on the pin-prick >sized appeture of television? Television news is manufacured, processed, >produced, packaged and cosumed like soap, nike sneakers or the friends >sit-com. Don't you think it would be wiser to consider that perhaps there >more people in the world with even more diverse oppinions than those >clinically selected (with specific intention) and represented by corporate >journalists? > >How can you generalise a population of millions/billions based a short clip >of footage engineered by western journalists with a western narrative aired >by the western mass media? > >Don't you think that there are more important issues to deal with than >spending your intellectual efforts fosering hatred of 'other people' who >have their own culture, unique and idiosyncratic - seperate from ours. Of >course there are many people in the world who would have celebrated the >attacks due to their own oppressed poor militarised existences. But this >does not mean that we should expend effort trying to prove to each other >that 'they' are evil and against 'us'. > >The western media is at best, extrodinatily limited in it's representation >of 'real people' in the middle east (or media east as it's exists for us). >Furthermore, it's representation is more often designed to promote this kind >of discussion by manufacture of 'stories' (one of these being the >celebrating Palistinians, another being the oppression of women in >Aphganistan for example). These stories are the developed and made self >referencial, repeated over and over by all media outlets until they become >the measure of oppinion polls on presidencial popularity. There simplify >polarize and synthasize politics and culture for the fast food culture that >is America. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Get the mailserver that powers this list at http://www.coolfusion.com Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
